↓ Skip to main content

Potential use of NOACs in developing countries: pros and cons

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
Title
Potential use of NOACs in developing countries: pros and cons
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00228-014-1693-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Durga Bista, Leanne Chalmers, Luke Bereznicki, Gregory Peterson

Abstract

Although vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are effective for long-term thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation (AF), their limitations have led to widespread underutilisation, especially in the developing world. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as promising alternatives to VKAs, although there are some particular considerations and challenges to their introduction in developing countries. This review summarises the current state of antithrombotic management of AF in the developing world, explores the early evidence for the NOACs and describes some of the special considerations that must be taken into account when considering the role of the NOACs within developing countries' health care systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 21%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 45%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 27 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2014.
All research outputs
#18,371,959
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#2,217
of 2,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,041
of 227,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#25
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,553 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.